Ask HN: What does performance management look like at your company?

But companies doing SAFe can use developer velocity to help judge individual dev productivity. That can be surprising if you aren't aware of what story points are used for.

First company: My manager met with me once over two years. It was 18 months into my just over two years stay, and all she told me was "We don't know eachother at all so I can't really judge your performance." She gave me the standard 7% and we never spoke again.

Second company: It was a huge joke. The CTO invented KPIs that were unattainable and didn't matter, and we were given raises purely because our contract was profitable.

Third company: We had such a ridiculous process of "Write three goals and go over them with your manager", which turned into "Just write anything so HR doesn't complain." The goals were totally useless. Engineers did not have the ability to decide what they worked on or how it went, but the goals implied they did. It was awful and, luckily, did not effect bonus targets.

I honestly think that "performance management" at most companies is a huge joke. I haven't seen it, and none of my peers have seen it, run successfully or be taken seriously. Companies want to pretend they care about your career trajectory and goals only until an employees goals require any legitimate effort from the company's side. The goals/KPIs are pretty much only successful if an employee sets those goals to be "Do whatever their manager thinks they should do", which I would argue isn't a goal at all.

My very cynical experience:

> For all its flaws, the review process at forces a conversation where you get to summarize to higher management what you have accomplished and why it is important.

In my experience, they've decided it already and don't really care what you put down - unless they want you to get a promotion and then they will care as they need buy-in from others. Particularly, if they want to screw you over, then it doesn't matter what you've written (i.e. even if you put in great accomplishments you can still get a poor rating).

> Peer-review at least gives you a chance to call out outstanding work from your co-workers.

Same thing here. We used to require naming 3 people to give peer feedback. When they want to screw someone, the manager would actively seek out negative reviews to support his case - regardless of whoever you picked.

> And the review itself at least gives you a venue to hear what management thinks of what you have done.

I can agree with this - although where I worked they'll let you know throughout the year. I did have one manager who was very reluctant to give negative feedback, though, so I suppose this benefits the employee where the manager is at least forced to formally give you negative feedback.

Processes are good in general, but useless if the system doesn't value it. If the manager can actively go and solicit feedback from folks you didn't nominate, then why waste my time and the time of the people I did nominate?

I cheered when my company stopped doing annual reviews.

I both agree with you and agree with your parent.

Yes, the chances of retaliation from your manager is not insignificant.

However, the experience with a good manager is always fantastic. If I don't trust my manager enough to give him negative feedback, I don't want to stay in the team. Giving negative feedback is one of the few reliable ways to discover if you have a good manager. I'd rather know than not know.

Source: Also been there and done that (and paid the price, but it was worth it).

The worst thing, though, is to put up with it. I tried it and it didn't end well either, which put me on the path of "Well if it's going to suck, it's better to be vocal than not."

May I ask why you find that unusual?

EDIT: I don't know what country you are in.